Literature DB >> 28357777

Public's Views toward Return of Secondary Results in Genomic Sequencing: It's (Almost) All about the Choice.

Kerry A Ryan1, Raymond G De Vries2,3, Wendy R Uhlmann2,4,5, J Scott Roberts2,6, Michele C Gornick2,7.   

Abstract

The therapeutic use of genomic sequencing creates novel and unresolved questions about cost, clinical efficacy, access, and the disclosure of sequencing results. The disclosure of the secondary results of sequencing poses a particularly challenging ethical problem. Experts disagree about which results should be shared and public input - especially important for the creation of disclosure policies - is complicated by the complex nature of genetics. Recognizing the value of deliberative democratic methods for soliciting informed public opinion on matters like these, we recruited participants from a clinical research site for an all-day deliberative democracy (DD) session. Participants were introduced to the clinical and ethical issues associated with genomic sequencing, after which they discussed the tradeoffs and offered their opinions about policies for the return of secondary results. Participants (n = 66; mean age = 57 (SD = 15); 70% female; 76% white) were divided into 10 small groups (5 to 8 participants each) allowing interactive deliberation on policy options for the return of three categories of secondary results: 1) medically actionable results; 2) risks for adult-onset disorders identified in children; and 3) carrier status for autosomal recessive disorders. In our qualitative analysis of the session transcripts, we found that while participants favored choice and had a preference for making information available, they also acknowledged the risks (and benefits) of learning such information. Our research reveals the nuanced reasoning used by members of the public when weighing the pros and cons of receiving genomic information, enriching our understanding of the findings of surveys of attitudes regarding access to secondary results.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Deliberative democracy; Disclosure of results; Ethics; Incidental findings; Participant preferences; Public policy; Qualitative analysis; Return of genomic results; Secondary results

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28357777      PMCID: PMC5620108          DOI: 10.1007/s10897-017-0095-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.537


  55 in total

1.  Genetics professionals' perspectives on reporting incidental findings from clinical genome-wide sequencing.

Authors:  Zoe Lohn; Shelin Adam; Patricia Birch; Anne Townsend; Jan Friedman
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 2.802

2.  Experiences with obtaining informed consent for genomic sequencing.

Authors:  Barbara A Bernhardt; Myra I Roche; Denise L Perry; Sarah R Scollon; Ashley N Tomlinson; Debra Skinner
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2015-07-21       Impact factor: 2.802

3.  Disclosure of incidental findings in cancer genomic research: investigators' perceptions on obligations and barriers.

Authors:  E Kleiderman; D Avard; A Besso; S Ali-Khan; G Sauvageau; J Hébert
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 4.438

4.  Public's approach to surrogate consent for dementia research: cautious pragmatism.

Authors:  Raymond De Vries; Kerry A Ryan; Aimee Stanczyk; Paul S Appelbaum; Laura Damschroder; David S Knopman; Scott Y H Kim
Journal:  Am J Geriatr Psychiatry       Date:  2013-01-12       Impact factor: 4.105

5.  Point-counterpoint. Ethics and genomic incidental findings.

Authors:  Amy L McGuire; Steven Joffe; Barbara A Koenig; Barbara B Biesecker; Laurence B McCullough; Jennifer S Blumenthal-Barby; Timothy Caulfield; Sharon F Terry; Robert C Green
Journal:  Science       Date:  2013-05-16       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  A qualitative study of healthcare providers' perspectives on the implications of genome-wide testing in pediatric clinical practice.

Authors:  Marian Reiff; Rebecca Mueller; Surabhi Mulchandani; Nancy B Spinner; Reed E Pyeritz; Barbara A Bernhardt
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-09-14       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Incidental findings in clinical genomics: a clarification.

Authors: 
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-07-04       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  Priority setting of ICU resources in an influenza pandemic: a qualitative study of the Canadian public's perspectives.

Authors:  Diego S Silva; Jennifer L Gibson; Ann Robertson; Cécile M Bensimon; Sachin Sahni; Laena Maunula; Maxwell J Smith
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2012-03-26       Impact factor: 3.295

9.  Community engagement for big epidemiology: deliberative democracy as a tool.

Authors:  Rebekah E McWhirter; Christine R Critchley; Dianne Nicol; Don Chalmers; Tess Whitton; Margaret Otlowski; Michael M Burgess; Joanne L Dickinson
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2014-11-20

10.  To disclose, or not to disclose? Context matters.

Authors:  Vasiliki Rahimzadeh; Denise Avard; Karine Sénécal; Bartha Maria Knoppers; Daniel Sinnett
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 4.246

View more
  8 in total

1.  Perspectives and preferences regarding genomic secondary findings in underrepresented prenatal and pediatric populations: A mixed-methods approach.

Authors:  Shannon Rego; Hannah Hoban; Simon Outram; Astrid N Zamora; Flavia Chen; Nuriye Sahin-Hodoglugil; Beatriz Anguiano; Matthew Norstad; Tiffany Yip; Billie Lianoglou; Teresa N Sparks; Mary E Norton; Barbara A Koenig; Anne M Slavotinek; Sara L Ackerman
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2022-04-08       Impact factor: 8.864

2.  Primary Care Implementation of Genomic Population Health Screening Using a Large Gene Sequencing Panel.

Authors:  Robert S Wildin; Christine A Giummo; Aaron W Reiter; Thomas C Peterson; Debra G B Leonard
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2022-04-25       Impact factor: 4.772

3.  In Different Voices: The Views of People with Disabilities about Return of Results from Precision Medicine Research.

Authors:  Maya Sabatello; Yuan Zhang; Ying Chen; Paul S Appelbaum
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 2.000

4.  Attitudes of stakeholders in psychiatry towards the inclusion of children in genomic research.

Authors:  Anna Sundby; Merete Watt Boolsen; Kristoffer Sølvsten Burgdorf; Henrik Ullum; Thomas Folkmann Hansen; Ole Mors
Journal:  Hum Genomics       Date:  2018-03-05       Impact factor: 4.639

5.  Stakeholders in psychiatry and their attitudes toward receiving pertinent and incident findings in genomic research.

Authors:  Anna Sundby; Merete W Boolsen; Kristoffer S Burgdorf; Henrik Ullum; Thomas F Hansen; Anna Middleton; Ole Mors
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2017-08-17       Impact factor: 2.802

Review 6.  Consent and Autonomy in the Genomics Era.

Authors:  Rachel Horton; Anneke Lucassen
Journal:  Curr Genet Med Rep       Date:  2019-05-02

7.  Researchers' perspectives on return of individual genetics results to research participants: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Erisa Sabakaki Mwaka; Deborah Ekusai Sebatta; Joseph Ochieng; Ian Guyton Munabi; Godfrey Bagenda; Deborah Ainembabazi; David Kaawa-Mafigiri
Journal:  Glob Bioeth       Date:  2021-03-09

Review 8.  Paediatric biobanking for health: The ethical, legal, and societal landscape.

Authors:  Sara Casati; Bridget Ellul; Michaela Th Mayrhofer; Marialuisa Lavitrano; Elodie Caboux; Zisis Kozlakidis
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2022-09-27
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.